Would You Buy This Camera?

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
I'd be curious about dynamic range and the ability for B&W conversion.
I'd imagine that the fairly substantial sensor improvements would have to equate to greater DR, but I haven't seen any specific discussion of that, let alone comparing the two cameras specifically. But it should be a safe bet that the Sony is gonna have more DR.

B&W conversion? I don't know how the Sony's B&W jpegs are but I can't imagine the color files from the camera wouldn't be just as good as the GRD files for conversion. The GRD "grit" wouldn't be as organic in the Sony, but I'm sure its achievable.

To me the advantage to the current GRDs over this or just about any other similar small camera are all down to interface and controls and, to a lesser extent, the fixed lens. In terms of everything else, the technology is moving forward and it sure doesn't seem to be getting worse! So I'd say the advantage should be with the Sony in terms of just about anything else.

-Ray
 

Country Parson

Top Veteran
Apr 5, 2011
North Carolina
Dan
Andrew, I think the B&W conversions are great just using jpegs since RAW software is not ready yet. There is a B&W conversion on my flickr page and on my personal page under "misc. street". You can compare it (the soldier monument) with the color version which is there also. Also for everything I have shot the DRO has been on auto, but it offers 5 levels of Dynamic Range Optimization. Frankly, I don't know what all those levels do, but it seems to have the whole dynamic range issue covered in my opinion.
 

SLLCS

New Member
Jun 23, 2011
Yes, but I'd prefer a 43mm f/2.0 (24x36mm equivalent) lens with an optional electronic viewfinder. Because I don't know Sony's GUI, I'd like an interface as easy to use as my Ricoh GXR's interface. I guess that I've described a Ricoh GRX II!
 

madmaxmedia

Veteran
Nov 10, 2010
Los Angeles
Angle of view of a 50mm lens is about the least useful of any lens. A 35mm lens gives you a chance for street photography and a 85mm lens gives you a portrait lens. The bit in the middle is lost.
Only thing is that you can kinda, sorta do both with the 50mm. Maybe.

I do get your point. I feel the same way about 35mm equivalent- straddling between 28mm (classic wide) and 50mm (classic normal).
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2010
bart
Only thing is that you can kinda, sorta do both with the 50mm. Maybe.

I do get your point. I feel the same way about 35mm equivalent- straddling between 28mm (classic wide) and 50mm (classic normal).
Haha for me 28mm is an awkward focal length, in between 24-and-wider (proper wide angle) and 35mm (wide-ish and very versatile)...
 

madmaxmedia

Veteran
Nov 10, 2010
Los Angeles
Next up will be ultra-wide guy who says 24mm a compromise for him...

The funny thing is that 28mm is the one focal length that I am absolutely comfortable shooting 'blind' without viewfinder, LCD, whatever. I pretty much know what it's going to cover near or far. It's not so much that I can always nail the exact borders of the image, but that the viewpoint just feels so intuitive to me (even if I might prefer a less wide viewpoint for certain images.)

24mm is too wide for me from a compositional standpoint, and 35mm feels slightly 'cropped' so I feel the need to verify image composition/framing (but is more versatile.)
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Decades and decades and decades of "fast fifties" would indicate that the 50mm focal length is just a tiny bit useful :wink:
Yeah, it is, but I think its historic dominance has less to do with any inherent usefulness and more to do with it being relatively easy to make good ones, being a fairly "neutral" focal length. Its still easier than most to do well, as evidenced by it still being the focal length where you're apt to find the fastest lenses. When I was a kid, every SLR I ever used or considered basically came with a 50-55mm prime lens, somewhere between f1.8 and f1.2. Wide angle and telephoto lenses were prohibitively expensive and/or not very good. Then you started being able to find 28mm and long lenses occasionally and then some half decent zooms started showing up but since there was no such thing as "digital correction" with film, it was a lot tougher to design at the wide end. So the 50's were the only good affordable lenses out there for a good long time. Now, lens makers are a lot better at this stuff than they used to be and we can get decent lenses in almost any focal length pretty affordably and good ones at a cost. And in the consumer market is a whole other thing, with tiny sensors and digital correction making all sorts of crazy zoom possible and pretty damn good for what they are.

I used nothing but 50's for years. I remember shooting high school football games with my K-1000 and 50mm and trying to make it work. Landscapes, portraits, EVERYTHING happened with that lens. And I didn't mind it because I didn't know anything else. But as soon as I started being able to shoot with wide angles regularly and telephotos occasionally, I haven't spent significant time with a 50 since. The 50 was a popular lens for a long time, but I don't think its because it was particularly good, just particularly available.

-Ray
 

Luckypenguin

Hall of Famer
Dec 24, 2010
Brisbane, Australia
Nic
I didn't say that 50mm was the most useful focal length, or even the equal most useful focal length. I was responding to the rather blunt assertion that it was "the least useful" focal length just because that photographer hasn't found a way to use it. I actually don't particularly have a favourite focal length, but if I have an inherently good (or even great) lens that doesn't stray too far from the normal perspective of the human eye I'll figure out make it work for me.
 

Andrewteee

All-Pro
Jul 8, 2010
28 and 50mm both seem very useful for me. Lately, it's been 90% 50mm. For me, it is an intimate story telling focal length, whereas 28mm is the same but with much more context in the frame. Those and somewhere between 75-100mm are all I really need.

Give me a 28-50-75mm zoom :biggrin: Leica's done something along those lines in their tri-elmer.

Or why not allow those step-zoom cameras to do that? You define the steps and it only stops at those focal lengths. Now that would be a great tool!
 

Yeats

All-Pro
Jul 31, 2012
New Jersey, USA
Chris
I've shot so many indoor photos between 35 and 90mm FL, that yes, I would consider buying this camera. In fact, I would be more inclined to buy it than the real RX100.
 

oldabelincoln

New Member
Aug 3, 2010
Silicon Valley
35mm equiv, please

I'm all for a fixed lens, but 35mm equivalent as a focal length for a fixed lens camera is the best compromise, as we saw years ago in film days with the Minox 35 and others.

What's really lacking today is some sort of viewfinder for composition. Having a fixed focal length lens makes it that much easier to add a viewfinder, and the two features go hand in hand.

I'll take any compact with a viewfinder, with any focal length lens, over any without a viewfinder.

Abe
 

mwerneburg

New Member
Aug 5, 2012
I've been told by a friend working at Sony's imaging division that we can expect essentially the camera you outline. Don't know the MRSP, don't know the maximum aperture, and doubt very much that it'll have a viewfinder* but I'm 90% sure it'll have a 35mm lens and will be announced at or before Photokina.

Enjoy the site, thanks for posting this speculative thread. Apologies if this is a duplicate account but I couldn't locate it and/or defeat your Captcha.

*That said, I'm sure that they're aware of the success of the X-100.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
I've been told by a friend working at Sony's imaging division that we can expect essentially the camera you outline. Don't know the MRSP, don't know the maximum aperture, and doubt very much that it'll have a viewfinder* but I'm 90% sure it'll have a 35mm lens and will be announced at or before Photokina.

Enjoy the site, thanks for posting this speculative thread. Apologies if this is a duplicate account but I couldn't locate it and/or defeat your Captcha.

*That said, I'm sure that they're aware of the success of the X-100.
Well, then I guess we'll still have to leave it to Ricoh to make one with a 28... :cool:

-Ray
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom